And yet you felt impelled to refer to your erection when describing a woman’s attractiveness. Here’s a hint: don’t refer to your erection when describing a woman’s attractiveness. It’s not that hard.
I’m not feeling sorry for myself.
A rule I knew nothing about got me a warning. It is what it is.
I was following the old don’t be a jerk rule and that wasn’t good enough.
Life goes on. They won’t ever get me again with a misogyny rule. I don’t have to be hit in the face twice.
Good!
It’s a feature, not a bug.
Do you think the current vague and amorphous policy has succeeded in avoiding arguments about why a particular phrase has been deemed misogynist?
For most people, yes. If you hadn’t started this thread, it wouldn’t have been an issue. You’re the customer who endlessly complains about the coffee and then claims it must be bad coffee because there are so many complaints about it.
Nope. My post #3 was sincere and genuine.
No, he didn’t. This assertion that Ace referred to his erection is false. Ascribing nefarious and egregious intention and action to a post that was in the same vein as the ad that this site serves is quite overblown.
Was the comment crude, yes. Do we serve crude ads, yes. That we apparently aren’t responsible for or in control of the content of our ads - It’s not unreasonable to me if a person can be confused by the juxtaposition. Ace caught a warning for it. Hopefully it won’t happen again.
This Just Asking Questions routine is tiresome and trite. If you have something to say, make a statement.
+15000
This is the first time I’ve ever had an option on the “like” button issue.
It wasn’t intended to cut down on the arguments. I don’t think anything ever will because some people LOVE to argue. The better question is whether it’s cut down on the misogyny. There’s some work to do as some people refuse to get the message, but yes, yes it has.
You could have used “difficult” but nooooo…
Uh, what? That is exactly what happened in the thread we are discussing. aceplace referenced having an erection over seeing a girl in an ad, and then Chronos considered this such an egregious violation of the anti-misogyny rules that he gave him a full on Warning. ]]
That thread is the one that HurricaneDitka is asking for clarification on–which IvoryTowerDenizen already gave by comparing an allowed thread with a disallowed thread.
The erection reference:
Bolding mine. ED means erectile dysfunction. And she supposedly “cures” it. He is saying that he got an erection, and that expects any other man would, too–even if they otherwise can’t get it up.
Chronos saying it is an egregious violation:
For a violation of the rules to be considered trolling, it has to be particularly egregious.
Ok, I’ll rephrase. I don’t think that the current vague and amorphous policy has succeeded in avoiding arguments about why a particular phrase has been deemed misogynist, and I think the SDMB would be well-served by clearer guidance.
And no, I’m not asking for a lexicon of the 27 words I can’t use so that I can find the 28th.
For example, the board has clear rules against personal insults directed at other posters. Some people do try to skirt right up to the line on that rule, but generally it’s clear guidance that’s well-understood and generally followed, to all our benefit.
If there’s concern about undue focus on physical appearance, [DEL]why not[/DEL] (scratch that) there ought to be a rule against commenting on physical appearance, or basing insults on the physical appearance of the person. I submit that such a policy would benefit us all.
At least that would help avoid the appearance of ridiculousness when posters and mods try to split hairs between “I wouldn’t kick her out of bed” (and other such tasteful and classy comments on a woman’s appearance) and ‘She can cure ED’ (or whatever it was that people found so trashy and disgusting).
If there are too many posters that are so petty that they feel it would unduly cut down on the orange / fat / hair jokes about President Trump, then you could even write an exception just for him (“except for President Trump, because we think he’s really detestable”).
No, he’s not “saying that he got an erection”. He’s not saying he suffers from ED, or that she cured it “for him”. Penfeather said “… you felt impelled to refer to your erection when describing a woman’s attractiveness …” and that is false. Aceplace did not “refer to [his] erection”.
No. He did not say that he got an erection. He repeated the gist of the ad. The ad that this site ran.
It’s been a common theme in some of the criticisms in this thread - that Ace was talking about his own erection. But this is not supported by any evidence. Your declatory statements notwithstanding.
Do you have a suggestion? Feel free to propose something for this guidance.
Then why was he warned? Genuinely confused now.
How about from his very own post?
Since the mods are trying to figure out where the line should be from the very people they think are causing the problem and that those causing the problem should be the ones to define the line,
instead of people not causing the problem.
Is this the tasteful and classy level that you guys are ok with?
What about the ladies? Surely this is the tasteful and classy thing you would love to hear from a gentleman that you had feelings for?
Bone you’re correct I was jokingly mirroring what the ad is intended to represent.
Attractive girl is an incentive to buy the blue pill and fix ED.
It’s Marketing 101. Companies have used sexual imagery to sell everything from cars to after shave for at least a century.
That may eventually change in the new political environment.
I’m not trying to figure out where the line should be from someone that we think is causing the problem. HurricaneDitka asked for clearer guidance about what the policy should be. Others said he was looking for a lexicon, but he said he’s not looking for a lexicon. But he hasn’t made it clear exactly what he is looking for.
That doesn’t mean we have to accept whatever he comes up with as our guidance, but HurricaneDitka is certainly free to provide input in this discussion. As it currently stands, nobody here except HurricaneDitka seems to have a good handle on exactly what he is looking for, so we don’t know if what he is asking for is even reasonable or the route that we want to go moving forward.
If he puts something forward, then we can either accept it or reject it. If all he says is he wants guidance and doesn’t say what that is, and keeps rejecting what everyone says he is looking for as that’s not what he is seeking, then this part of the conversation goes nowhere.
As for his “tasteful and classy comments” bit, I am assuming that was sarcasm, illustrating the point of finding a dividing line between two similarly offensive choices (at least I hope that was sarcasm). Since both of the choices were way over the line, any proposed guidelines are going to have to be pretty far on the other side of that line.
From his post:
As a starting point, I’d be interested to see a discussion on this. My imagination may be lagging right now, but I can’t think of exceptions that couldn’t be carved out explicitly.